ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011162
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Officer | A Third Level College |
Representatives | SIPTU |
|
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00014905-001 | 10/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker claims that her position should at a higher grade. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker claims that she is doing work in her current position, appropriate to a higher grade. She has raised this through the grievance procedure, but no progress has been made. Details of recommendations from a 2016 report were provided which include that it was “essential that a…. competency framework is established and rolled out for support staff” and that “the university should introduce a promotion scheme for support staff”. However, it was outlined that these recommendations have not been implemented todate. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer detailed that she is a valued employee but that they are restricted in putting forward roles for job evaluation. It was also detailed that there are talks ongoing nationally with regards to job evaluation and that the employer is engaged in ongoing talks with the union regarding promotion opportunities for those support staff such as the worker. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker is looking for a job evaluation of her position. The employer detailed that they are prevented from doing this but that there are talks at a national level regarding job evaluation and that locally the employer is involved with talks regarding promotion opportunities for support staff. It was surprising that the recommendations of the 2016 report, referred to at the hearing, have not been implemented, thus far, particularly when this report highlighted that it was ‘essential’ that they would be, although I note that there have been some discussions around same. Having reviewed the details of the dispute, I recommend as follows: The university should implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations of the 2016 Report, namely that a “competency framework is established and rolled out for support staff” and that “the university should introduce a promotion scheme for support staff”. The worker’s current position should be reviewed as part of any Job Evaluation process and/or as part of the internal promotions process, once such mechanisms are implemented. Due to the unique circumstances of this dispute and the delay in processing the worker’s dispute, in a timely manner, the employer should pay €3,500 to the worker by way of compensation. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having reviewed the details of the dispute, I recommend as follows: The university should implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations of the 2016 Report, namely that a “competency framework is established and rolled out for support staff” and that “the university should introduce a promotion scheme for support staff”. The worker’s current position should be reviewed as part of any Job Evaluation process and/or as part of the internal promotions process, once such mechanisms are implemented. Due to the unique circumstances of this dispute and the delay in processing the worker’s dispute, in a timely manner, the employer should pay €3,500 to the worker by way of compensation. |
Dated: February 19th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Industrial relations, job evaluation, promotion |